|
|
Post by galen on Oct 3, 2017 0:33:44 GMT -6
This seems to be the general consensus. Looking at Rev 7 there's no mention of either condition, in chapter 14 they are implied as both given that they didn't defile themselves with women. But as we all know the Bible doesn't use much gender inclusive terminology, taliking about how we should treat our brothers for example (does that mean there's a different standard for sisters? Rheotorical question). The Bible can definitely talk about a mixed group using language that a literal meaning would seem to suggest men only. As for the virgin part "they did not defile themselves with women" does a man who has sex exclusively with his wife defile himself? The passage talks about their absolute purity but surely that means they have been wholeheartedly serving God since conversion. They were obviously former sinners who missed the rapture although they could have been devout Orthodox Jews who were devout in their own misguided works based way beforehand. That's not said however and they equally could have been lawless. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 3, 2017 8:43:49 GMT -6
It explicitly says so in the verse: biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm
A deeper investigation into the word 'women'/'woman' gives this:
the word used as woman in the passage
The greek word for virgin is παρθένοι (parthenoi) which is the same root for the word Parthenon, the temple dedicated to Athena, who was a virgin.
It follows heterosexually speaking (and logically too), that if they were virgins because they had not 'defiled themselves with women'; they are men.
There is an implication in Thayer's Greek Lexicon that they "...[have] abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so [have] kept [their] chastity". biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 3, 2017 9:26:43 GMT -6
yardstick I've always looked at this as they are highly observant Jews. Perhaps even those who were recently Bar-Mitzvah(ed) EDIT - my reason for them being young is in my experience and exposure personally, being "observant" doesn't make them undefiled. In fact I've seen quite the opposite
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 3, 2017 10:01:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Oct 3, 2017 14:12:56 GMT -6
Somebody somewhere (sorry my memory is 😵) suggested it is a jab at the "angels who left their first estate" in Genesis and defiled themselves with human women. However, I don't understand why that would be applied to the 144,000 Israelites sealed and redeemed from the earth. The person who suggested this said it just meant they were redeemed and pure by faith in Christ. I suppose it COULD be like a reference to the angels... if Revelation is like a reverse mirroring of Genesis like somebody else put forth somewhere (again 😵). Since it seems like the 144,000 are sealed immediately after the rapture (rapture is the main harvest of Barley and 144,000 are first fruits of wheat) and we speculate that fallen angels will be cast to the earth when the raptured saints go up, maybe it's a hint to the fallen angels to not dare attempt to breed with humans again. Just speculating...!
|
|
|
|
Post by galen on Oct 3, 2017 22:50:11 GMT -6
It explicitly says so in the verse: biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm
A deeper investigation into the word 'women'/'woman' gives this:
the word used as woman in the passage
The greek word for virgin is παρθένοι (parthenoi) which is the same root for the word Parthenon, the temple dedicated to Athena, who was a virgin.
It follows heterosexually speaking (and logically too), that if they were virgins because they had not 'defiled themselves with women'; they are men.
There is an implication in Thayer's Greek Lexicon that they "...[have] abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so [have] kept [their] chastity". biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
I was reading the NIV which simply stated "They did not defile themselves with women" without the virgin part. Talking about your heterosexual observation that doesn't fully answer my question because what I said was the Bible often refers to a mixed group in language that is exclusive. For example in the 1 Cor 6:9 passage about certain types of immoral people who will not inherit the kingdom of God it talks of male prostitutes. Does that mean female prostitutes are alright. The passageof Rev 14 is written in language that seems to exclude women but so many other Biblical passages.
|
|
|
|
Post by galen on Oct 3, 2017 22:54:03 GMT -6
It explicitly says so in the verse: biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm
A deeper investigation into the word 'women'/'woman' gives this:
the word used as woman in the passage
The greek word for virgin is παρθένοι (parthenoi) which is the same root for the word Parthenon, the temple dedicated to Athena, who was a virgin.
It follows heterosexually speaking (and logically too), that if they were virgins because they had not 'defiled themselves with women'; they are men.
There is an implication in Thayer's Greek Lexicon that they "...[have] abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so [have] kept [their] chastity". biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
Confusion here, I clicked on your link and saw NIV which used virgins. My NIV says "kept themselves pure." Don't understand the discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 3, 2017 23:21:09 GMT -6
It explicitly says so in the verse: biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm
A deeper investigation into the word 'women'/'woman' gives this:
the word used as woman in the passage
The greek word for virgin is παρθένοι (parthenoi) which is the same root for the word Parthenon, the temple dedicated to Athena, who was a virgin.
It follows heterosexually speaking (and logically too), that if they were virgins because they had not 'defiled themselves with women'; they are men.
There is an implication in Thayer's Greek Lexicon that they "...[have] abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so [have] kept [their] chastity". biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
Confusion here, I clicked on your link and saw NIV which used virgins. My NIV says "kept themselves pure." Don't understand the discrepancy.
Not sure which link you are referring to, but here is the NIV link: biblehub.com/niv/revelation/14.htmit still says 'virgins' NASB Lexicon says chaste" but uses Strong's 3933, which is παρθένοι (parthenoi) - 'virgins' biblehub.com/lexicon/revelation/14-4.htmStrongs 3933, 'virgins'biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 3, 2017 23:32:46 GMT -6
It explicitly says so in the verse: biblehub.com/revelation/14-4.htm
A deeper investigation into the word 'women'/'woman' gives this:
the word used as woman in the passage
The greek word for virgin is παρθένοι (parthenoi) which is the same root for the word Parthenon, the temple dedicated to Athena, who was a virgin.
It follows heterosexually speaking (and logically too), that if they were virgins because they had not 'defiled themselves with women'; they are men.
There is an implication in Thayer's Greek Lexicon that they "...[have] abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so [have] kept [their] chastity". biblehub.com/greek/3933.htm
I was reading the NIV which simply stated "They did not defile themselves with women" without the virgin part. Talking about your heterosexual observation that doesn't fully answer my question because what I said was the Bible often refers to a mixed group in language that is exclusive. For example in the 1 Cor 6:9 passage about certain types of immoral people who will not inherit the kingdom of God it talks of male prostitutes. Does that mean female prostitutes are alright. The passageof Rev 14 is written in language that seems to exclude women but so many other Biblical passages.
The heterosexual clause was a bit of a joke (wordplay). You may find a better explanation than I can give at the source of the information. I have found that if the Bible is using an exclusive phrase, its intended to be exclusive, rather than inclusive. Typically such grammatical 'errors' indicate there is something peculiar about the passage. It does not look, on its face, to be what it actually is. An example would be the 'huios' and 'arsen' words used in Rev 12:5 and Isa 66:7 Please feel free to poke around in biblehub. Its a very helpful resource. Some like the blue letter bible website too. |
|
|
|
Post by galen on Oct 4, 2017 0:43:49 GMT -6
Not sure which link you are referring to, but here is the NIV link: biblehub.com/niv/revelation/14.htmit still says 'virgins' NASB Lexicon says chaste" but uses Strong's 3933, which is παρθένοι (parthenoi) - 'virgins' biblehub.com/lexicon/revelation/14-4.htmStrongs 3933, 'virgins'biblehub.com/greek/3933.htmI was actually referring to my hard copy NIV study Bible. Complete verse: These are those who did not defile themselves with women for they kept themselves pure. They follow the lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the lamb. I'm seriously wondering if there is an error in the website and that they have mistakenly linked the NIV to another translation. I have my hardcopy Bible which has NIV on the cover. Might poke round the site for more discrepancies. |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Oct 4, 2017 0:53:16 GMT -6
It's a very interesting topic. Until I can see a good reason to think otherwise, I believe it is as the Bible says--they are virgins, and they are male. Rather than dispute this, I tend to then think about where these (evidently young) men are today, especially since most of them come from tribes that are not easily represented in the current geographically recognized nation of Israel. My concept is that when we find out where the various tribes have been hiding out, there will be some surprises and some major "aha" moments. Going back to the Ezekiel 37 2-sticks passage, along with Isaiah 11, it really looks like the rejoining of the 12 (13?) tribes is underway today but the bulk of them have not been revealed.
More discussion on that passage in the "Mysterious Dan" thread. But we could expect to come up with the 12,000 from Judah fairly easily, and quite possibly the 12,000 from Levi, and maybe the 12,000 from Benjamin from the current known Jews in the world. (Remember, less than half of all known Jews are in the state of Israel at this time). There are no doubt a few from other tribes--Anna in the New Testament was descended from Asher--but the thing is, the modern Jews have NOT been keeping track of what tribe they are in, and most do not know. The bulk of the 10 northern tribes still needs to be rejoined as in the 2-sticks prophecy.
And--it may finally be underway at long last. . . . two days after the Revelation 12 Sign. . . . . . . . But it's too early to say for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 4, 2017 7:05:30 GMT -6
It's a very interesting topic. Until I can see a good reason to think otherwise, I believe it is as the Bible says--they are virgins, and they are male. Rather than dispute this, I tend to then think about where these (evidently young) men are today, especially since most of them come from tribes that are not easily represented in the current geographically recognized nation of Israel. My concept is that when we find out where the various tribes have been hiding out, there will be some surprises and some major "aha" moments. Going back to the Ezekiel 37 2-sticks passage, along with Isaiah 11, it really looks like the rejoining of the 12 (13?) tribes is underway today but the bulk of them have not been revealed. More discussion on that passage in the "Mysterious Dan" thread. But we could expect to come up with the 12,000 from Judah fairly easily, and quite possibly the 12,000 from Levi, and maybe the 12,000 from Benjamin from the current known Jews in the world. (Remember, less than half of all known Jews are in the state of Israel at this time). There are no doubt a few from other tribes--Anna in the New Testament was descended from Asher--but the thing is, the modern Jews have NOT been keeping track of what tribe they are in, and most do not know. The bulk of the 10 northern tribes still needs to be rejoined as in the 2-sticks prophecy. And--it may finally be underway at long last. . . . two days after the Revelation 12 Sign. . . . . . . . But it's too early to say for sure. Do you think its necessary for the 144,000 to know what tribes they are from? However they are selected or called, wouldnt the Lord get it right? That "AH HA!" moment where they are all mysteriously 12,000 from each tribe  |
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Oct 4, 2017 8:50:27 GMT -6
Here is some interesting commentary of Rev. 7
5 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, Judah
12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, Reuben
12,000 from the tribe of Gad, Gad
6 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, Asher
12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, Naphtali,
12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh,
7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, Simeon,
12,000 from the tribe of Levi, Levi
12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, Issachar
8 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, Zebulun
12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, and Joseph
12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed. Benjamin
In Jewish hermeneutics (Scripture interpretation), a remez is a hidden message or a deeper meaning that is below the surface or behind the words.
Judah: Praise the Lord,
Reuben: He has looked on my affliction
Gad: good fortune comes
Asher: happy and blessed am I
Napthali: my wrestling
Manasseh: has made me forget my sorrow
Simeon: God hears me
Levi: has joined me
Issachar: rewarded me
Zebulun: exalted me
Joseph: adding to me
Benjamin: the Son of His right hand.
Please notice IF these twelve tribes were listed in any other order -- or if DAN or Ephraim -- were included
Then this particular message would never have been written
Praise the Lord. He has looked on my affliction [and] good fortune comes. Happy and blessed am I. My wrestling has made me forget my sorrow. God hears me, has joined me, rewarded me, exalted me [by] adding to me the Son of His right hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Oct 4, 2017 10:27:22 GMT -6
That is amazing and awesome, kjs! Wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Oct 4, 2017 10:31:49 GMT -6
Impressive!
|
|
